QUOTA, OR TARIFF, OR HOME NURSING ?

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 62, 14 March 1934, Page 8

QUOTA, OR TARIFF, OR HOME NURSING ?

Three main points emerge from the conference of dairying interests held yesterday—(l) quantitative reduction ("quota") of New Zealand's dairy exports to Britain; (2) the possibility of avoiding.quantitative reduction by tariff concessions to Britain at the expense of ' New Zealand's secondary industries; (3) the possibility of giving internal relief to dairy farmers at the expense of the New Zealand consumer (as by a price-raising.stabilisation) or at the expense of the New 'Zealand taxpayer. As to the quota, it is admitted that the Ottawa Agreement cannot be" cancelled or 'Varied except by the consent of the parties; in that sense, it is true, as Mr. Forbes said, that "regulation is out of the way" until the expiration of the Ottawa Agreement. ■ But it is also true, as Mr. Coates said, that the parties to the agreement. may consult a.s to varying it, and the agreement specifically provides for such consultation. The quota is therefore not "out of the way" unless New Zealand keeps it out of the way by not exercising the consultative power. So far the conference'has made no move in the direction of consultation, and it is certainly within the power of, the delegates to ,keep the quota, or any quota, out/of it so far as this, conference is concerned, and to recommend similar policy to the Government. As to point No. 2—bargaining through the tariff to avoid or modify the. quota—the British Government's cablegram, taking a liberal interpretation thereof, implied that nothing in the New Zealand tariff caused the British Government's agricultural policy of planned marketing, and made it very clear that planned marketing is not .going to halt at the present stage because of any New Zealand suggestion pointing to "drastic reduction or removal of New Zealand's protective tariff on United Kingdom gopds." Here again, however, it has to be pointed out that the British Government's cablegram does not put tariff negotiations "out of the way" any more than the Ottawa Agreement puts consultation on quota "out of the way." The British Government says that tariff or mutual trade proposals, aimed at securing from Britain a "guarantee of the continuance of unrestricted entry for New Zealand primary products" into Britain, must in any case be wider than one section of trade and than one Dominion, and cannot be entertained as involving a modification of Britain's planned marketing policy; but Britain is at all times ready to give full consideration to any proposals of the New Zealand Government for the development of mutual trade between the two countries. The plain reading of this seems to be that planned marketing must go on, but (except by mutual consent) planned marketing cannot include a quota on New Zealand dairy produce until the expiration" of the Ottawa Agreement; at the same time, planned marketing is not inconsistent with mutual trade negotiations which might influence the post-agreement policy of Britain in quota matters. The practical difficulties in the way include the fact that Britain's negotiations could not be confined to one Dominion alone. If, confronted with this and other difficulties, the conference turns away from both quota consultations and tariff negotiations to internal relief (point No. 3) then the consumer and perhaps the taxpayer will have to look out. But we do not wish to prejudge any internal relief scheme the conference may evolve. As the British Government in February adopted a policy of internal relief by giving a financial guarantee of prices under the Milk Marketing Board's scheme for converting surplus milk into cheese, at an estimated cost to the Government of at least a million and a half in the first year, plus publicity funds, Britain in a way lias set New Zealand a precedent. But the New Zealand butter market is not parallel with Britain's nor even with Australia's, and this is a point that "stabilisers" must not lose sight of.